Ha’aretz’s opinion page says religion is bad. The recent furor over a declaration issued by several Israeli rabbis, headed by the chief rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu, urging Jewish residents not to rent apartments to Arabs, has been heated in all quarters. The primary angle taken by the Ha’aretz opinion page is that this shows why religion is bad. I want to talk about the response of some of the most prominent Israeli Orthodox rabbis who came out against the declaration.

Three in particular: The Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the Religious-Zionist Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, and (the also Religious Zionist) Rabbi Yehuda Gilad.

All three of these rabbis are Orthodox, and all command great respect in their own milieus. All three vehemently oppose the ban. But they do so in different ways.

Let’s start with Rabbi Gilad, one of the heads of the Maale Gilboa Yeshiva, near Beit She’an. His response, published in the New York Jewish Week, takes a tone that will be familiar to most American Jewish opponents of the ban: He cites as the opinion of early rabbis in Israel’s history that

the prohibition ‘you shall not show them favor’ (Deut. 7:2) written in the Torah and part of the cannon of Halakhah, is not relevant to the reality of a Jewish democratic state — a member of the family of nations, which promised before the entire world to grant equality to its citizens regardless of religion, race or sex … We should remember the country’s Jewish character is measured first and foremost through moral parameters. Dozens of times the Torah abjures us to love the stranger.

The point is clear. There is a fundamental moral value of equality that Judaism understands, and that formal halakhic rulings must submit to. If Jewish Law has not lived up to morality, it has failed.

Next, we move to Rabbi Lichtenstein, semi-retired head of the Har Etzion Yeshiva in Alon Shevut. His letter speaks, not in the impassioned tone of universal moral values, but rather as a jurist whose sole concern is to decide the Jewish law properly: “The prohibition of selling homes to gentiles is presented as the exclusive halakhic position in the manner at hand. … Is that indeed so?” Rabbi Lichtenstein proceeds to cite the positions of prominent medieval sages who held positions contrary to that of Maimonides, on which the ban was based. So we see that while the outcome is the same, opposition to the ban, Rabbi Lichtenstein is allowing only the Jewish law itself manifested in different opinions, not universal mores, to enter into the picture as first principles. Indeed, the measured, legalistic tone of the response caused Haaretz columnist Israel Harel to complain that “his comprehensive response downplayed [the] humanistic aspect of the problem.” Humanism, it emerges, seems to be a more important category in Rabbi Gilad’s thought than in Rabbi Lichtenstein’s.

Now I turn to Rabbi Elyashiv (pictured), widely considered to be the final word for Ultra-Orthodox religious decision-making in our generation. It is treacherous even trying to quote him, because he spends most of his time at home, allowing others louder and presumably less honest to speak in his name. The quote, however, that appears to stand out in most of the media is, “I’ve said for some time that there are rabbis who must have their pens taken away from them.” I’m not sure what ideological commitments I should read into that. But I can’t help but be impressed by the tone of cool authority it exudes.

3 Older Responses to “Religion Is Bad, and Other Responses”

Nicely put. You can add Ovadia Yosef to the list, as well as Rabbi David Rosen, the interfaith spokesperson for the Chief Rabbinate who according to the AP “described the rabbis’ action as ‘disturbing’ but said he did not think that the majority of the country’s rabbis would agree and called it a product of the lingering conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. ‘The rabbinate as a whole isn’t xenophobic or hostile to Arabs,’ Rosen said. ‘As long as the conflict goes on here, it’s logical to assume that the attitudes of all sides will harden, which is deeply regrettable.'”

Basically, not only is Orthodoxy not a monolith, but amazingly enough, 40 fringe rabbis in the nation with the most rabbis in the world turn out not to be a representative sample of religious thought. Thus, the top Ashkenazi and Sephardi rabbis in the country refused to sign, as did over 2/3 of religious Zionists municipal rabbis – yet the headlines went to the otherwise unknown extremists, because doing so pushes Ha’aretz’s editorial line and/or because they are ignorant of the rabbinic hierarchy of modern Israel (both problems bring to mind this recent sketch about Israeli journalism).

I have a friend here in Melbourne who was angry that there has been no coordinated response to th original letter by Rabbis, which while I am not sure is 100% necessary would be nice.

You can of course add Rav Yuval and quite a few others to the list of those who spoke out against it.

I am interested in Rabbi Druckman’s campaign which from what I understand is instead of targeting “Arabs” in a very obviously racist fashion, would target “Non-Jews who pose a security risk, which of course not all Arabs do”. Is that just trying to make things appear less racist or is it at all coming from a good place, and not just covering up Rabbinic racism from exposure in the Israeli and world media?

About New Voices

Advertise in New Voices

Newvoices.org is the online destination for Jewish college students — especially the leaders and taste-makers of the Jewish campus community — as well as the professionals who work closely with them.
Advertise With Us >>

Spare Some Change?

New Voices and the Jewish Student Press Service depend heavily on small donations from committed individuals who know how important it is to provide this platform for college students.